Fleet Lists wrote:It is interested that on demand services will also come the full Opal umbrella from 2020.

Apart from IPART setting prices for them I don't think you can infer from the referral that there is any intention that they should all accept on-board payment let alone an Opal card. While there does seem to be enough scope for IPART to consider whether an on-demand fare could form part of an integrated Opal journey fare perhaps even (once again) propose a superior integrated fare system they are hamstring by the feasibility requirement which I guess effectively allows TfNSW to veto anything beyond the current transfer rebate unless IPART is prepared to demand and accept independent evidence. In some ways its foolish for IPART to innovate because the Government will undermine the recommendations by picking and choosing the bits they implement.

Nasty bean counters that they are IPART will probably not propose to integrate on-demand fares for reasons of cost recovery anyway and to save their masters the difficulty of blow back from the taxi industry and the likes of Uber. Presumably, IPART will just propose a large hike to on-demand fares and have a go at standardising them. The Government will of course play its white knight role and restrict the rise. Not all bad news as it means demand for low-demand services is not further usurped but leaving pax worse off once they are forced onto on-demand services as part of multi-segment journey when there existing service is eliminated.

It provides political cover. Apart from setting prices its a mistake to let IPART consider other aspects of the fare system due to their narrow focus and skill set. I'm not sure I even trust them to set prices. Pricing ferries significantly higher than buses just increases road congestion and pollution yet IPART would tolerate lower cost recovery for electrically powered ferries because they produce less pollution.

Norway is leading the charge here - over 30 electric conversion ferries operating, and now designing them from scratch.

Reportedly cuts fuel bill by 85%

Thanks but my point is even if they cost the same to run under IPART's modelling they could justify a lower fare because the ferry produces less pollution. I don't think they even care about whether the power is produced cleanly or not.

Come to think about it, I'd be prepared to pay a bit more to ride an electric bus while IPART would be happy with lower cost recovery on these. Go figure,

Anyway, this all irrelevant as I don't think even IPART would set differential fares depending on how individual vehicles are powered and largely electric bus and ferry fleets are long way off here.

Probably as much about managing demand as cost recovery. If the ferry was the same price as the train from Parramatta, even though slower would likely lead to a demand spike beyond the capacity of the current fleet. Witness what happened when Sunday patronage on Parramatta River services doubled within a few years after the Opal cap was introduced.

Demand management may be a valid argument for Parramatta but not for most of the North Shore and Manly services. If you are going to use price to manage demand it is really needs to be done for specific routes and times not as coarsely applied like it is now, The Opal Sunday cap is stupidly low. Having it only on Sunday probably increases demand on that day far beyond it would be if it also applied on Saturday and public holidays. I don't have a problem with charging more for a premium service provided the premium is justifiable and doesn't lead to adverse affects. Double Bay Rose Bay Watson Bay service have an adequate if slower Bus/Rail service in the off peak so ferry services at this time probably should have full cost recovery.

Passenger 57 wrote:Double Bay Rose Bay Watson Bay service have an adequate if slower Bus/Rail service in the off peak so ferry services at this time probably should have full cost recovery.

As do most areas served by ferries. Only examples I can think of that don't have a bus go close to the wharf are Birchgrove, Balmain, Double Bay, Elizabeth Bay, North Sydney and Kirribilli, and anybody commuting from these isn't likely to be short of a quid. Been a while since I did a peak hour Manly service, but when I last did, IIRC was busy.

But pricing ferries more than bus & rail is fair in that aspect it serves largely areas of high-socio economic status so they can easily afford the cost and maybe should absorb the full cost. There is an argument in general that can be made that should PT be able to self sufficient and the riders pay for the full cost.

Passenger 57 wrote:Double Bay Rose Bay Watson Bay service have an adequate if slower Bus/Rail service in the off peak so ferry services at this time probably should have full cost recovery.

As do most areas served by ferries. Only examples I can think of that don't have a bus go close to the wharf are Birchgrove, Balmain, Double Bay, Elizabeth Bay, North Sydney and Kirribilli, and anybody commuting from these isn't likely to be short of a quid. Been a while since I did a peak hour Manly service, but when I last did, IIRC was busy.

It's not just a matter of whether of whether the wharf is served by a bus but how reasonable the bus service is as an alternative, Its irrelevant if the area is affluent or not. Poor people live there too. Anyway, I doubt IPART will be doing anything significant with ferry fares in the next review.

Frosty wrote:There is an argument in general that can be made that should PT be able to self sufficient and the riders pay for the full cost.

It's a fair focus, but you'd never achieve 100% recovery without pricing the product out of the range of the majority of users. It's about improving the recovery from near rock bottom lows. At the moment, taxpayers are, IMO, covering too much of the bill.

Aside from the political impracticalities of implementing a large increase in fares, would result in people getting back into their cars thus increasing the amount needed to be spent on roads, so ends up being a false economy.

Obviously there needs to be reforms to road pricing as well to changes in public transport. If you introduce proper road pricing then you can increase public transport fares to cover more of its operating costs. I saw last night in a 7News report farebox recovery is only at 20%. Interestingly the only place that actually makes profit on public transport is Hong Kong's MTR because its rail & property company.

We do have a road tax of sorts already through fuel levys, the more you drive, the more fuel you consume, so the more you pay. If I had a dollar for every idea I have read about to use GPS tracking to charge users, I would be very wealthy.

“as the NSW government still hasn’t fixed opal to make it possible for our beloved 10 most expensive trips per week to be implemented, we instead recommend a 25% discount after 8 paid journeys in a week. The costs of running PT are rising bla bla bla and we think the customer should subsidise more of it, that’s quite fair because Sydney itself is also becoming more and more expensive ”

“as the NSW government still hasn’t fixed opal to make it possible for our beloved 10 most expensive trips per week to be implemented, we instead recommend a 25% discount after 8 paid journeys in a week. The costs of running PT are rising bla bla bla and we think the customer should subsidise more of it, that’s quite fair because Sydney itself is also becoming more and more expensive ”

NSW Liberals - “HA ok, let’s do that then!”

More likely they would change to 9 or 10 journeys then 50% discount, which would be a sensible change and they could also spin fares having a lower rise than inflation, if that were included. Or just pocket the extra fare revenue. The deterred patronage from the latter is sure to be negligible.